HIGH COURT FORM NO.(J) 2 HEADING OF JUDGMENT ON ORIGINAL APPEAL IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, TEZPUR, SONITPUR Present: N.J. Haque, LLM, AJS Civil Judge Tezpur, Sonitpur 30 th September’ 2019 TITLE APPEAL NO. 10/2017 Sri Gautam Chandra Chanda Son of (L) Bimol Chandra Chanda R/o – Bogipukhuri Mouza- Dhekiajuli PO- Dhekiajuli Dist - Sonitpur, Assam ----- Appellant/Plaintiff -Versus- (1) Sri Narayan Chandra Das S/o (L) Bharat Chandra Das R/o – Moila-ali Mouza- Dhekiajuli PO- Dhekiajuli Dist - Sonitpur, Assam (2) Legal heirs of Parul Bala Chanda – (i) Smt. Minoti Chanda (ii) Smt. Minu Chanda (iii) Sri Biswajit Chanda (iv) Sri Ranjit Chanda W/o (L) Bimol Chandra Chanda R/o – Bogipukhuri Mouza- Dhekiajuli PO- Dhekiajuli Dist - Sonitpur, Assam ------ Respondent/Defendant This appeal has been preferred U/O-41 Rule 1 of CPC against judgment and decree dated 25-05-2017 passed by the learned Munsiff, No.1, Tezpur in Title Suit No.136 of 2010, dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff, and came up for final hearing on -04-09-2019 & 20-09-2019 in presence of following Learned Advocates:- Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant : - Mr. P. Saikia Learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent : - Mr. N. Sarma J U D G M E N T 1. This first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant on being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by Ld. Munsiff, No.1,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
HIGH COURT FORM NO.(J) 2 HEADING OF JUDGMENT ON ORIGINAL APPEAL
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, TEZPUR, SONITPUR
Present: N.J. Haque, LLM, AJS Civil Judge
Tezpur, Sonitpur 30th September’ 2019
TITLE APPEAL NO. 10/2017
Sri Gautam Chandra Chanda Son of (L) Bimol Chandra Chanda R/o – Bogipukhuri Mouza- Dhekiajuli PO- Dhekiajuli Dist - Sonitpur, Assam ----- Appellant/Plaintiff
-Versus-
(1) Sri Narayan Chandra Das S/o (L) Bharat Chandra Das
R/o – Moila-ali Mouza- Dhekiajuli PO- Dhekiajuli Dist - Sonitpur, Assam (2) Legal heirs of Parul Bala Chanda – (i) Smt. Minoti Chanda (ii) Smt. Minu Chanda (iii) Sri Biswajit Chanda (iv) Sri Ranjit Chanda
This appeal has been preferred U/O-41 Rule 1 of CPC
against judgment and decree dated 25-05-2017 passed by the learned Munsiff, No.1, Tezpur in Title Suit No.136 of
2010, dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff, and
came up for final hearing on -04-09-2019 & 20-09-2019 in presence of following Learned Advocates:-
Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant : - Mr. P. Saikia Learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent : - Mr. N. Sarma
J U D G M E N T
1. This first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant on being
dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by Ld. Munsiff, No.1,
2 Title Appeal No-10/17 (Arising our of T.S No-136 of 2010)
Sri Gautam Chandra Chanda Vs. Sri Narayan Chandra Das and ors
Tezpur dated 25-05-2017, vide T.S No- 136 of 2010, whereby the learned
trial court dismissed the suit on contest with cost.
2. Upon admission of the appeal for hearing, the notice was issued to the
respondents and the original case record of Title Suit no-136/2010 was
called for and subsequently received.
3. In order to decide the appeal, let me describe, in brief, the facts leading to
this appeal:--
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT’S CASE
4. Case of the plaintiff/appellant appears to be in a nutshell is that plaintiff’s
father purchased the suit land measuring 6 Bighas 4 Lessas in the name of
plaintiff Gautam Chandra Chanda vide registered Sale Deed No.515/78 from
its previous owner and took delivery of possession of said land. That
subsequently old Dag No.66 was covered to Dag No.90 with land measuring
5 Bighas 2 Kathas 11 Lessas and Dag No.67 was converted into Dag No.91
with land measuring 6 Bighas 3 Kathas 7 Lessas and previous patta No.79
was converted into periodic patta No.43. That defendant No.2 is the mother
of the plaintiff and she does not have any right, title and interest over the
suit property. That plaintiff /appellant on 20-04-2007 on obtaining certified
copy of Jamabandi of Periodic Patta No.43 came to know that name of
defendant No.2 mutated in the suit land and subsequently vide Misc. case
No.6/08 on 12-10-2009 name of the plaintiff restored in the suit land by
cancellation of illegal mutation of defendant No.2. Thereafter, on 25-01-2010
defendant No.2 (plaintiff’s mother) knowing cancellation of her name from
revenue records illegally executed sale deed No.101/2010 in favour of
defendant No.1 that described schedule B of the plaint and on the basis of
said illegal sale deed, defendant No.1 illegally trespassed into the suit land in
the month of January, 2010 and occupied the same. Accordingly,
plaintiff/appellant instituted the law-suit against both the defendants for
declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit A schedule land and
recovery of possession by evicting the defendant No.1. The plaintiff further
prayed cancelation of sale deed described in schedule B along with other
reliefs.
3 Title Appeal No-10/17 (Arising our of T.S No-136 of 2010)
Sri Gautam Chandra Chanda Vs. Sri Narayan Chandra Das and ors
DEFENDANT/RESPONDANT’S CASE
5. Per contra, both the defendant/respondent contested case of plaintiff by
filling written statement both in law and facts denying the entire averments
of the plaint. The defendants with the plea of non-maintainability, cause of
action, limitation etc. pleaded further that admittedly plaintiff/appellant was
a minor in the year 1978 and said Sameli Rani Dey was not the owner of
said land hence, she could not sell the land either to plaintiff or his father. It
is further pleaded that the plaintiff never paid any rent regularly pertaining
to the suit land. That Uttam Ch. Chanda and Smt. Parul Bala Chanda are
recorded pattadars of land measuring 12 Bighas 8 Lessas under Dag No.90
and 91 of Periodic Patta No.43 as recorded co-pattadar having 6 Bighas 4
Lessas of land. That defendant No.2 is the recorded pattadar and true owner
of the land measuring 6 Bighas 4 Lessas under Dag No.90, 91 of Periodic
Patta No.43 out of total land measuring 12 Bighas 8 Lessas and Sri Uttam
Ch. Chanda is the owner and pattadar of other parts of land. That Dag No.
66 and 67 never converted into Dag No.90 and 91 and patta No.79 also
never converted into Periodic Patta No.43 as claimed by the plaintiff. That
name of plaintiff did not appear as pattadar in PP No.43 under Dag No.90
and 91. Hence, question of mutation of defendant No.2 over PP No.43 does
not arise. The defendant further pleaded that sale deed as claimed by the
plaintiff neither illegal or void or inoperative. Hence, upon the above
defendant prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.
ISSUES
6. Upon the pleadings of both the sides the learned trial Court has framed the
following issues :
(1) Whether the suit is maintainable? (2) Whether there is cause of action for the suit? (3) Whether the plaintiff has right and interest over suit land? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree as prayed
for? (5) To what other relief the parties are entitled to ?
7. And during trial, plaintiff /appellant adduced both ocular and documentary
forms of evidences and per contra the defendant side submitted evidence in
4 Title Appeal No-10/17 (Arising our of T.S No-136 of 2010)
Sri Gautam Chandra Chanda Vs. Sri Narayan Chandra Das and ors
chief of DW-1 but failed to bring such witness for cross-examination and
therefore, defendant’s evidence was closed.
8. After hearing both sides, the learned trial court by the impugned judgment
dated 25-05-2017 dismissed the suit with cost. On being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the plaintiff/appellant preferred the
present appeal, upon the following grounds: --
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1. That the learned trial court committed both error of law and fact at the time of passing the impugned judgment and decree challenged in this appeal.
2. That the learned trial court did not apply her mind judiciously at the time of passing judgment and decree.
3. That the learned trial court decided the Issues Nos.3, 4 and 5 without applying the mind judiciously, hence the judgment and decree is bad in the eye of law.
4. That the learned trial court committed great mistake and gross error in fact and law at the time of deciding Issue Nos.3, 4 and 5.
5. That due to non-framing of proper issues the learned trial court has committed great mistake at the time of passing the impugned judgment and decree.
6. That the appellant/plaintiff exhibited the certified copy of registered Sale deed to show the purchase of the suit land as Ext.1 without any objection hence same cannot be challenged at subsequent stage by the respondents /defendants, hence, the trial court has wrongly held that Ext.1 was not properly proved at the time of deciding Issue No.3.
7. That the fact of lost of original Sale Deed of the plaintiff/appellant was not challenged by the respondents/defendants neither in their written statement nor challenged the same at the time of cross-examination of the appellant/plaintiff.
8. That the appellant/plaintiff in his examination-in-chief has clearly proved the contents of Ext.1 by saying that he has purchased the land measuring 6 bighas 0 Katha 4 Lessas under Dag No.66 (old) 67 (new) of Periodic patta No.79 (old) 43 (new) from Sameliram Deb vide registered Sale Deed No.515 of 1978, yet the learned trial court has wrongly mentioned that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove the contents of Ext.1 in the trial.
9. That in the instant suit Ext.1 was exhibited in court without any objection from the respondents side and trial court also had allowed to exhibit the certified copy of said sale deed as Ext.1, hence, the learned trial court has wrongly hold while deciding the Issue No.3 that said Ext.1 cannot be looked into in support of plea that the plaintiff has purchased the suit land vide Ext.1 as the said plea remained unproved.
10. That while the plaintiff has proved the Ext.1 Sale deed No.515 of 1978 by taking proper leave for leading the same as secondary evidence under
5 Title Appeal No-10/17 (Arising our of T.S No-136 of 2010)
Sri Gautam Chandra Chanda Vs. Sri Narayan Chandra Das and ors
Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act from the court on 09-01-2014, yet the learned trial court has wrongly hold while deciding the Issue No.3 that PW-1 has failed to fulfill the requirement of section 65 (c) of Indian Evidence Act.
11. That the appellant/plaintiff has proved the original record of Misc. Case No.6/2008 as Ext.4 through official witness Sri Nirmal Kalita, Revenue Sheristadar of D.C. Office, Sonitpur who has exhibited original order of Additional Deputy Commissioner as Ext.4(1). He has also proved the Chitha copy as Ext.4 (3) and he has also proved that name of Smt. Parul Bala was cancelled and the name of Gautam Chanda was restored, hence, the learned trial court ought not to have held that the appellant failed to prove the fact of his purchase of the suit land at the time of deciding the Issue No.3.
12. That the respondent /defendant No.2 though filed her examination-in-chief but did not come to witness box for her cross-examination hence, the learned trial court ought to have presumed that her defence was totally false and baseless.
13. That the learned trial court has wrongly hold that respondent /defendant No.2 was the Patta holder of the suit land only on the basis of Jamabandi entry which is not title document and which was cancelled by the competent authority.
14. That the respondent/defendant No.2 himself took the plea that he had not released the suit land in favor of the respondent No.2 and gave evidence in that regard hence the learned trial court has wrongly hold that it was the duty of the appellant /plaintiff to prove that the signature of Chitha was not of his while deciding Issue No.4.
15. That PW-4 was an official witness and he had deposed only on the basis of official record only and as such he has rightly admitted in his cross-examination that he has no personal knowledge on what basis Additional Deputy Commissioner passed Ext.4(1) order. It was the duty of the revenue staff to correct the record as per said order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner hence the learned trial court ought not to hold the name of Parul Bala has not been cancelled yet while deciding the Issue No.4.
16. That the learned trial court ought not to give much importance about the existence of her name in the Chitha while her name was cancelled by Additional Deputy Commissioner in Misc. Case No.6/2008.
17. That the learned trial court without proper discussion of fact and law wrongly decided the Issue Nos.3, 4 and 5.
18. That while the appellant/plaintiff has proved his case as per his pleadings and while the respondent /defendants have failed to prove their case as per their pleadings the learned trial court ought to have decreed the suit.
19. That the learned trial court misread and misapplied the law and fact while deciding the Issue Nos.3, 4 and 5.
20. That the learned trial court without properly discussed the facts, evidence on record and laws wrongly decided Issue Nos.3, 4 and 5.
21. That the learned trial court misread and misapplied laws involved in the
6 Title Appeal No-10/17 (Arising our of T.S No-136 of 2010)
Sri Gautam Chandra Chanda Vs. Sri Narayan Chandra Das and ors
suit and misapplied evidence on record at the time of passing the impugned judgment and decree challenged in this appeal.
22. That the learned trial court has rightly decided the Issue No.1 and 2 but decided the Issue Nos.3, 4 and 5 wrongly without properly discussing the oral and documentary evidence on record and without justly and lawfully applying and apprising the same mainly on surmise and conjecture for which the trial court has committed wrong in deciding the suit.
23. That the judgment and decree challenged suffers from illegality, material irregularity and being wrong, unjust, and inequitable without jurisdiction, miscarriage of justice and is against all cannons of law. Hence, needs to be set aside and reversed.
EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT’S SIDE
9. To decide the contentions of the appellant/plaintiff let us reproduce some
relevant portions of the evidences adduced by plaintiff/appellant side.
10. Plaintiff examined as many as four nos. of witnesses and relied upon on
certain documents. PW-1 submitted his examination-in-chief through
affidavit supporting and reproducing the entire contents of the plaint and he
exhibited the following documents:-
Ext.1 : certified copy of sale deed No.515/16 Ext.2 : certified copy of sale deed No.101/10
Ext.3 : Misc. case no.6/2008 Ext.4 : record of Misc. case no.6/2008 Ext.4 (1) : certified copy of order dated 12-10-2009 Ext.4 (2) : signature of Bimal Ch. Neog
Ext.4 (3) : Certified copy of Chitha
11. PW-1 in his cross-examination deposed that he has filed this suit against
Narayan Chandra Das and Parul Bala Chanda. Parul Bala Chanda is his
mother. The suit land was purchased by his father. At the time of purchasing
land by his father, he was aged around 15/16 years. The land purchased by
his father was measuring 6 Bighas 4 Lessas. The land purchased by his
father was covered under Dag No. (Old) 66, 67, new 90, 91 of Patta No. old
79 and new 43. He has not filed any Jamabandi relating to the suit land in
this suit. He has document relating to mutation of land in his name, but he
has not filed the same in the suit. He has not filed any land revenue receipt
in this suit. He has not filed any document relating to conversion of old Dag
and Patta to new dag and Patta. He could not file the original of Title Deed
No.515/1978 relating to the land purchased by his father. He has been living
in Naihati, North 24 Profane District, and West Bengal since 1980 till date.
7 Title Appeal No-10/17 (Arising our of T.S No-136 of 2010)
Sri Gautam Chandra Chanda Vs. Sri Narayan Chandra Das and ors
Apart from him, he will tender evidence of other two witnesses. He did his
studies in Naihati and doing a private job there. His family resides at Naihati.
The immovable property situated in Naihati belongs to his mother-defendant
No.2. In the land situated at Bogipukhuri, Dhekiajuli, his widow mother, his
physically handicapped brother and one unmarried sister resides. His
unmarred sister looks after his widow mother and his handicapped brother.
He doesn’t have knowledge if his father executed any Will. Munindra Ch.
Chandra was on the east of suit land and now Ashis Das stays on the east.
Initially Amulya Ch. Dey was on the west and now Uttam Ch. Chandra is
there. Sudesh Ch. Dey was on the north since from earlier till now. On the
south, earlier Tukeswar Bora and now Boliram Gupta resides. In para no.1 of
his plaint he has mentioned that “I had purchased land measuring 6 Bighas
4 Lessas out of 5 Bigha 2 Katha 1 Lessas under Dag No.66 and 3 Bigha 7
Lessas under Dag No.67 (ka) and 3 Bigha 3 Katha under Dag No.67 (kha)
total land measuring 12 Bigha 8 Lessas covered by PP No.79 of village
Alisinga, Mouza-Borsola on 03-02-1978 from its previous owner Chameli Rani
Dey. He has filed this suit for 6 Bighas 4 lessas of land. He has stated that
he has purchased the aforesaid land from Chameli Rani Dey, but he has not
submitted Jamabandi standing in the name of Chameli Rani Dey. On 20-04-
2007 he has obtained Jamabandi but neither has he filed the same along
with his affidavit nor exhibited. He filed this suit on 27-09-2010. After three
years of obtaining the Jamabandi on 20-04-2007, he has instituted this suit
on 27-09-2010. He has 5 Bighas 2 Kathas of land in Dag No.90 of Patta
No.43 and there is land measuring 6 Bigha 3 Katha 7 Lessas in the name of
defendant No.2 in Dag No. 91, at village Alisinga under Borsola Mouza.
Except the Ext.3, he has not filed any document relating to the case
proceeded in Revenue court, in this suit. His mother as a pattadar sold land
to defendant No.1 vide sale deed no.101/2010 dated 25-01-2010 and since
then Narayana Das is possessing the said land after mutating the same.
Prior to sale of suit land to Narayan Das, the suit land was possessed by his
mother.
12. PW-2 submitted his examination-in-chief supporting the entire contentions of
8 Title Appeal No-10/17 (Arising our of T.S No-136 of 2010)
Sri Gautam Chandra Chanda Vs. Sri Narayan Chandra Das and ors
the plaintiff by reproducing those contentions in his evidence. He in his
cross-examination deposed that Gautam Chanda filed this suit against
Narayan Ch. Das and none else. He has never seen the Patta of suit land. He
does not know the Dag and Patta no. along with the name of village. The
suit land is bounded by : North – Sudesh Ch. Dey, South- Tukeswar Bora,
East- Manindra Chandra and West- Amulya Chandra Dey. He knows the
defendant since the time of occupying the suit land. Plaintiff’s mother sold to
defendant No.1. Plaintiff and defendants have lands at Alisinga in the same
Patta. Originally the suit land was purchased by plaintiff’s father in the name
of plaintiff. The land was measuring 6 bighas. Now, Gautam Chanda resides
in Kolkata. He doesn’t know the age of Gautam Chanda at the time when the
land was purchased. He doesn’t know the occupation and the source of
income of Gautam in Kolkata. Suit land was never cultivated by Gautam
Chanda himself. He doesn’t know who the owner of the property in Kolkata
is. Till now, Gautam Chanda failed to take possession of the suit land.
Plaintiff did not ask him to come for evidence, he has come of his own.
13. PW-3 submitted his examination-in-chief supporting the entire contentions of
the plaintiff by reproducing those contentions in his evidence. He in his
cross-examination deposed that this suit was filed by Gautam Chanda
against Parul Bala and Narayan Chandra. He recognized the suit land since
his childhood. There are names of Uttam Chandra and Parul Bala in the Dag
no.90, 91 of Patta No.43 of Alisinga village. Parul Bala as a pattadar sold the
said land. Suit land was purchased by Gautam Chandra. He doesn’t know
when and from whom the land was purchased. He doesn’t know the Dag
and Patta no. of the land purchased by Gautam Chanda. He knows Gautam
Chanda from childhood, of the same village. For 10/15 years Gautam
Chanda is residing in Kolkata. He comes here occasionally. He doesn’t know
if he stays with his mother on his visit. There is property in Bogipukhuri
gaon. After the death of his father, his mother used to look after the suit
land and other lands and she also get cultivated the land. Along with the
mother of plaintiff, one unmarried daughter resides. He does not know if any
handicapped brother also stays. Plaintiff’s mother sold land to Narayan
9 Title Appeal No-10/17 (Arising our of T.S No-136 of 2010)
Sri Gautam Chandra Chanda Vs. Sri Narayan Chandra Das and ors
Chandra from her own Patta.
14. PW-4, official witness, in his evidence deposed that now he is working as a
Revenue Sheristadar in the D.C.s office. Misc. case No.6/2008 was
proceeding in the court of ADC, Sonitpur. Ext.4 is the original record of Misc.
case No.6/2008. Ext.4, case was disposed of on 12-10-2009. In the order
dated 12-10-2009, it was mentioned that the order contained in separate
sheet. Ext.4(1) is the original order dated 12-10-2009. Ext.4 (2) is the
signature of Biman Ch. Neog, which he knows. Ext.3 is the copy of same
order vide Ext.4 (1). In the copy of Chitha relating to the Dag No.90
enclosed with Ext.4, it is written that (1) Gautam Ch. Chanda, Son of Bimal,
(2) Uttam Ch. Chanda, son of Nirmal and No.(3) Parul, wife of Bimal. The
share of Parul Bala is 2 Bigha 3 Katha 10 ½ Lessa. In the Dag No.91 it is
written that (1) Gautam Ch. Chanda, Son of Bimal, (2) Uttam Ch. Chanda,
son of Nirmal and No.(3) Parul, wife of Bimal. The share of Parul Bala is
shown to be 3 Bigha 1 Katha 10 ½ Lessa. In the remarks column of both the
Dag, it was mention that “I release the share of land of my mother.” In both
the columns, there is mention of Bimal Chandra and Gautam Chanda. Ext.4
(3) in Ext.4 is the copy of Chitha. Vide Ext.4(1) order was passed to cancel
the mutation in the name of Parul Bala of the land under Dag No.90 and 91
and to restore the mutation in the name of Gautam Chandra.
15. In cross-examination, PW-4 deposed that he has no personal knowledge as
to on what basis ADC Biman Neog passed his order vide Ext.4 (1). In Ext.4
(3) the name of Parul Bala in Chitha of Dag No. 90 and 91, and the area of
land are written in red ink. Till now the name is not cancelled. There is no
signature of Gautam Chanda and Bimal Chanda in the column No.31, where
it was mentioned that “I release the share of land of my mother.” It is
shown to be taken from his mother. He has no personal knowledge if they
actually put their signatures. RKG Office or Circle Office may tell.
DISCUSSIONS, DECISIONS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISIONS
16. On careful perusal of the judgment and order passed by the learned Munsiff
No-1, Sonitpur, Tezpur this court in the forthcoming discussions, shall try to
the decide the following pertinent questions:-
10 Title Appeal No-10/17 (Arising our of T.S No-136 of 2010)
Sri Gautam Chandra Chanda Vs. Sri Narayan Chandra Das and ors
the evidences adduced by the plaintiff/appellant properly
leaving no stone unturned?
4. Whether findings of learned Munsiff No-1, Sonitpur, and
Tezpur are based upon lawful consideration and settled
provisions of law?
17. Taking notes, upon the questions formulated by the court in the upcoming
discussions this first appellate court shall try to answer the questions above
including the grounds of appeal of appellant in the light of evidence adduced
by the plaintiff/appellant in original suit. The plaintiff/appellant being
dissatisfied with the judgment and decree delivered by the Ld. Munsiff No.1,
Sonitpur, and Tezpur preferred instant appeal by submitting a Memo. of
appeal contending that learned court wrongly decided the Issue No.3
observing that plaintiff/appellant without complying Section 65 (c) of Indian
Evidence Act adduced secondary evidence of sale deed No.515 of 1978. The
appellant further pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff has proved the original
record of Misc. Case No.6/2008 as Ext.4 through official witness Sri Nirmal
Kalita, Revenue Sheristadar of D.C. Office, Sonitpur who has exhibited
original order of Additional Deputy Commissioner as Ext.4(1). He has also
proved the Chitha copy as Ext.4(3) and he has also proved that name of
Smt. Parul Bala was cancelled and the name of Gautam Chanda was
restored, hence, the learned trial court ought not to have held that the
appellant failed to prove the fact of his purchase of the suit land at the time
of deciding the Issue No.3. Hence, from the objection raised in the Memo. of
Appeal by the appellant, it is seen that plaintiff/appellant vehemently
objected against the discussion and decision of learned court below
pertaining to Issue No.3 that relates to the question of right, title and
interest of plaintiff/appellant over the suit land. Considering the pleading on
11 Title Appeal No-10/17 (Arising our of T.S No-136 of 2010)
Sri Gautam Chandra Chanda Vs. Sri Narayan Chandra Das and ors
record and the submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant side, let us discuss the Issue No.3 at the outset to arrive at a
proper conclusion of dispute in hand.
18. Issue No.3: Whether the plaintiff has right and interest over suit land?
The plaintiff/appellant brought the instant law-suit against the defendants
/respondents for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit A
schedule land with its recovery and further praying cancellation of registered
sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 in the
year 2010 pertaining to the suit land with other consequential reliefs. Before
going to the aspects of appreciation of evidence on record, let us try to
ascertain the facts asserted by the plaintiff/appellant in his pleadings. On
careful perusal of the plaint, it is disclosed before this court that plaintiff set
forth following facts for declaration of his right, title and interest over the
suit land :
(i) That plaintiff’s father purchased land measuring 12
Bighas 8 Lessas covered by PP No.79 vide Dag No.665
and 67 in the name of plaintiff in the year 1978 vide
sale deed No.515/78 from its previous owner Sameli
Rani Dey ;
(ii) That the plaintiff become the absolute owner and
possessor of land measuring 6 Bighas 4 Lessas out of
the land of Dag No.66 and 67 of PP No.79 ;
(iii) That old Dag no.66 converted to Dag No.90 with land
measuring 5 Bighas 2 Kathas 1 Lessa ;
(iv) That Dag No.67 was converted into Dag No.91 with
land measuring 6 Bighas 3 Kathas 7 Lessas ;
(v) That periodic Patta No.79 was converted to periodic
Patta No.43 ;
(vi) That on 20-04-2007 plaintiff came to know that his
mother, defendant No.2 mutated her name in the suit
land ;
(vii) That vide Misc. case No.6/08 on 12-10-2009 plaintiff’s
12 Title Appeal No-10/17 (Arising our of T.S No-136 of 2010)
Sri Gautam Chandra Chanda Vs. Sri Narayan Chandra Das and ors
name restored in suit land by cancellation of name of
his mother ;
(viii) That defendant No.2 knowing about cancellation of her
name of revenue records, sold the suit land to
defendant No.1 on 25-01-2010 vide sale deed
No.101/2010 ;
(ix) That defendant No.1 in the month of January, 2010
illegally occupied the suit land.
19. The aforesaid facts were asserted by the plaintiff claiming the existence of
those facts and as per Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, the plaintiff
/appellant has got the obligation or liability to prove the existence of those
facts asserted by him in his plaint.
20. From the evidence of plaintiff side, it disclosed before this court that plaintiff
exhibited one certified copy of sale deed No.515 /1978 as Ext.1, certified
copy of registered sale deed No.101/2010 as ext.2 and order passed in Misc.
case No.6/08 as Ext.3. The learned trial court below at the time of
appreciation of documentary forms of evidences categorically opined that
plaintiff at the time of exhibiting the certified copy of sale deed No.515/1978
failed to comply the settled provisions of Section 65(c) of Indian Evidence
Act. The learned trial court below further opined that certified copy of sale
deed is a private document which is maintained in the form of public
document is not admissible unless Section 65 (c) of Evidence Act is fulfilled.
21. Now, coming to the sustainability of the findings of the learned trial court
below, this court is like to discuss the settled provisions of law pertaining to
a certified copy of sale deed.
22. The constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cement Corporation
of India –vs- Purya and others, AIR 2004 SC 4830, observed that
acceptance of certified copy as evidence not limited to production of certified
copy of sale deed in evidence, it also enables a party producing it to rely on
its contents of documents without examining the vendor / vendee. Such
certified copies are to be read in evidence and their evidentiary value has to
be evaluated in the light of other evidence adduced. The Hon’ble Apex Court
13 Title Appeal No-10/17 (Arising our of T.S No-136 of 2010)
Sri Gautam Chandra Chanda Vs. Sri Narayan Chandra Das and ors
further held that Primary evidence is an evidence which the law requires to
be given first; secondary evidence is evidence which may be given in the
absence of that better evidence when a proper explanation of its absence
has been given. However, there are exceptions to the aforementioned rule.
23. Chapter V of the Act deals with Documentary Evidence. Section 61 provides
that contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by
secondary evidence. Section 62 defines primary evidence as meaning the
document itself produced for inspection of the Court. Section 63 defines
Secondary evidence as meaning and including among others certified copies
given under the provisions of the Evidence Act. Section 64 provides that
documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases
mentioned in the subsequent sections. Section 65 deals with cases in which
secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. The relevant
portion of Section 65 is extracted below:-Secondary evidence may be given
of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases:
(a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power
of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any
person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any
person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in
Section 66, such person does not produce it;
(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been
proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or
by his representative in interest;
(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering
evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his
own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;
(d) when the original is of such nature as not to be easily movable;
(e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74;
(f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by
this Act, or by any other law in force is, to be given in evidence.
24. Section 65 further provides that in cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary
evidence of the contents of document is admissible; in case (b), the written
14 Title Appeal No-10/17 (Arising our of T.S No-136 of 2010)
Sri Gautam Chandra Chanda Vs. Sri Narayan Chandra Das and ors
admission is admissible; in case (e) and (f), a certified copy of the
document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible.
25. Section- 74 of Evidence Act defines public documents and private documents respectively. Section -74 of Evidence Act postulates that following documents are public documents - (1) documents forming the acts or records of the acts - (i) of the sovereign authority, (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive of any part of India or of the Common Wealth or of a foreign country; (2) public records kept in any State of private documents.
26. Public document, (clause (e)] - This clause is intended to protect the
originals of public records from the danger to which they would be exposed
by constant production in evidence. Secondary evidence is admissible in the
case of public documents mentioned in Section 74. What Section 74 provides
is that public records kept in any state of private documents are public
documents, but private documents of which public records are kept are not
in themselves public documents. A registered document, therefore, does not
fall under either Clause (e) or (f). The entry in the register book is a public
document, but the original is a private document.
27. Certain amount of confusion exists because a certified copy can be
produced as secondary evidence either under clauses (e) and (f) of Section
65 or under clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Section 65. But the difference is that a
certified copy is the only mode of secondary evidence that is permissible in
cases falling under clauses (e) or (f) of Section 65. But in the cases falling
under clauses (a), (b) or (c), the secondary evidence can be a certified copy
in the case of a registered instrument or by other modes described
in Section 63 in regard to unregistered documents.
28. As such, form the aforesaid discussion, it can safely be concluded here that
production and marking of a certified copy as secondary evidence of a public
document u/s 65 (e) of Indian Evidence Act need not be provided by laying
any foundation for acceptance of secondary evidence. This is the position
even in regard to certified copy of entries in Book No.1 under Registration
Act in relation to a public documents produced therein. Furthermore,